The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

[NewEngland Seeker]

Thoughts Made Manifest

To further the idea of thought centered universe there is a new hypothesis that the universe is a self-simulating existence of pure thoughts.

If I understand C's teaching of our multidimensional existence, this new hypothesis seems to describe the universe as the same way the C's have.

From the article: The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

"A new hypothesis says the universe self-simulates itself in a "strange loop".

• A paper from the Quantum Gravity Research institute proposes there is an underlying panconsciousness.
• The work looks to unify insight from quantum mechanics with a non-materialistic perspective."

"Philosopher Nick Bostrom famously considered this in his seminal paper Are you living in a computer simulation?, where he proposed that all of our existence may be just a product of very sophisticated computer simulations ran by advanced beings, whose real nature we may never be able to know. Now a new theory comes along that takes it a step further – what if there are no advanced beings like that either and everything in "reality" is a self-simulation that generates itself from pure thought?"

"But where does the physical reality that would generate the simulations comes from, wonder the researchers? Their hypothesis takes a non-materialistic approach, saying that everything is information expressed as thought. As such, the universe "self-actualizes" itself into existence, relying on underlying algorithms and a rule they call "the principle of efficient language.""

"Under this proposal, the entire simulation of everything in existence is just one "grand thought". How would the simulation itself be originated? It was always there, say the researchers, explaining the concept of "timeless emergentism". According to this idea, time isn't there at all. Instead, the all-encompassing thought that is our reality offers a nested semblance of a hierarchical order, full of "sub-thoughts" that reach all the way down the rabbit hole towards the base mathematics and fundamental particles. This is also where the rule of efficient language comes in, suggesting that humans themselves are such "emergent sub-thoughts" and they experience and find meaning in the world through other sub-thoughts (called "code-steps or actions") in the most economical fashion."

"In correspondence with Big Think, physicist David Chester elaborated: "While many scientists presume materialism to be true, we believe that quantum mechanics may provide hints that our reality is a mental construct. Recent advances in quantum gravity, such as seeing spacetime emergent via a hologram, also is a hint that spacetime is not fundamental. This is also compatible with ancient Hermetic and Indian philosophy. In a sense, the mental construct of reality creates spacetime to efficiently understand itself by creating a network of subconscious entities that can interact and explore the totality of possibilities." "

_________________________________​

Question: Are space, time and physical constants such as gravity sub-thoughts? Are the physical constants, mathematical equations plus a connected thought form?​

​

Continuing with the article;​

_________________________________​

If all of this is hard to grasp, the authors offer another interesting idea that may link your everyday experience to these philosophical considerations. Think of your dreams as your own personal self-simulations, postulates the team. While they are rather primitive (by super-intelligent future AI standards), dreams tend to provide better resolution than current computer modeling and are a great example of the evolution of the human mind. As the scientists write, "What is most remarkable is the ultra-high-fidelity resolution of these mind-based simulations and the accuracy of the physics therein."

_________________________________​

(Our dreams are our own universe! This opens a whole new approach to dream work.)​

_________________________________​

The team also proposes that in the coming years we will be able to create designer consciousnesses for ourselves as advancements in gene editing could allow us to make our own mind-simulations much more powerful. We may also see minds emerging that do not require matter at all.

_________________________________​

Sounds like the team is proposing that we will become our own gods!​

_________________________________​

Original Article in Entropy
The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

 

[Antony]

​

Escaping The Matrix: Could We Hack Or Escape A Simulated Reality?​

Since the dawn of human consciousness we have pondered and wondered upon the nature of our reality and where we sit within it. It has been what has given rise…

Since the dawn of human consciousness we have pondered and wondered upon the nature of our reality and where we sit within it. It has been what has given rise to religions and philosophies since time unremembered, an unanswered question that has driven the greatest minds of history. One pervasive modern idea on the nature of reality is that everything we see and do is part of a vast, complex simulation run by humans from far in the future, AI, or even aliens using hyper-advanced computers, and that you, I, and everyone around us are all living in essentially one massive and super sophisticated virtual reality program that perfectly mimics physical reality. Although bandied about for years, this idea, called the “The Simulation Hypothesis,” was first definitively formed and cemented in the public awareness in 2003, by University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, who proposed that our ancestors far in the future may have reached a point in computing technology in which they are able to create whole virtual worlds populated by artificial intelligence programs that exist digitally, us, for the purpose of perhaps recreating different eras of their past or their evolutionary history for their own study or amusement, it is impossible to know. Whatever their purpose, Bostrom speculated that there could feasibly be vast numbers of these virtual simulations being run by our descendants, aliens, or even those created by other simulations, making us possibly computer simulations within other more advanced computer simulations, which could in turn be simulations of others themselves. This then leads to the question that, if this is all indeed a hyper-advanced computer program, then could it be somehow hacked by us and could we even possibly devise a way to escape its confines? Let’s take a look.

Considering the almost absolute certainty that we will one day achieve the technology to produce ever more complex simulations, and that these would potentially spawn countless other simulated worlds and minds that would eventually far outnumber those of the original creators, Bostrum argued that there was a statistically much higher chance that we are among the simulated rather than the original biological minds that started the whole thing, or what is often called the “base reality.” If this were the case, and our physical bounds were decided by and even occasionally changed or manipulated by these creators, then trying to understand the universe we inhabit would be less like science and more like a video game character trying to figure out the operating system their “game” is running on. We would have no idea if the rules of reality as we know it are set or even real to begin with and would be at the whim of some sort of source code.

If all of this is true, and we are indeed living in some advanced simulation that perfectly mimics the physical world to make it indistinguishable from reality, and we are truly like video game characters in a game, then there is also the question of, like with other computer programs, whether we can hack it. This is a question that has been pondered by simulation theorists in recent years, and one of these is Dr. David Anderson, a computer scientist, SETI enthusiast, and mathematician at the University of California, Berkeley. It started as a simple thought experiment, with Anderson musing that if we do live in a computer program, then we may have a chance to hack it through a hypothetical simulation program he calls “Unisym.” He said of it in an interview with the New York Times:

Being a programmer, I thought about exactly what these changes might involve. Unisym is just software, and if it’s well-written it should be easy to modify. Modifications could change our laws of physics, or add new ‘features’ to our universe: menu options, buttons to push, knobs to fiddle with. Things to make our lives richer or more fun.

He began to consider this in more detail, pondering whether the Unisym would be quantum in nature or digital, how it would work, who or what could be hosting it, whether it is open source, that is, publicly available for other programmers to inspect and manipulate, and even if the ones behind it are able to hear and take requests from the ones living in it. He speculates that what he calls the “meta-hackers” might field and consider “pull requests,” or changes to the source code, from our universe within the simulation. In a way, this would be a sort of futuristic version of praying to a higher power, only in this case instead of some god or deity, it is to whoever or whatever created our simulation. If they were listening and granted our wishes, then reality could be altered to whatever we wished, be that immortality, time travel, or anything else we desire, the only limit being our imagination. Anderson even carried out a poll in which he asked friends and colleagues what they would wish for, and Dennis Overbye of the New York Times writes of this:

Dr. Anderson recently polled his colleagues to ask how they would tweak the cosmic algorithm, which he calls Unisym. He posted the responses on his blog, along with comments on how these changes might be put in effect and how well they might work. “This was during Covid, when I was filling my ample free time by writing various essays on philosophy, politics and music and putting them on my website,” he said. The emphasis was not on eliminating war and injustice but on features that might help us cosmic small fry to navigate the vicissitudes of “life. For example, Dr. Anderson would like to be able to click a button and view all of the footsteps he has ever taken, glowing orange on the ground. “I can see where I’ve been in Berkeley and go to the Sierras and I can see all the hikes I’ve taken there,” he said. Clicking another button would highlight all of the footprints ever made. “Are there places no one has ever been?” he wondered.
His son, he added, would like to know if a joke he was about to tell would get a good laugh. Some feature requests from his other respondents: the ability to pause the simulation long enough to think up a snappy retort in conversation, or a rewind option to undo a regrettable remark or revisit a missed opportunity, something I would definitely up-vote. For my part, I’d like to be able to hit a button upon entering a restaurant that would drop a cone of silence over every other table. (My hearing isn’t what it used to be.) My wife said she would like for a hologram of her to appear whenever she was late to some appointment, and then disappear when she actually arrived, so that nobody would know she had been absent. A popular modification is what Dr. Anderson calls “the look of death,” the ultimate expression of road rage: With a blink of your eyes, you could doom offending drivers and their cars to be incinerated by a powerful laser.

Is there anything to this? Another scientist who has considered the idea of hacking our simulation is Roman V. Yampolskiy, a computer scientist at the University of Louisville who is known for his work on behavioral biometrics, the security of cyberworlds, and artificial intelligence safety. Yampolskiy has taken it a step further than Anderson in that he believes that if we are living in a computer simulation, then not only would we be able to hack it to change reality, but that we may even be able to hack our way out of it. He originally posed the question, “Could generally intelligent agents placed in virtual environments jailbreak out of them?,” and he would go on to examine every angle of this conundrum. He says of the idea of hacking the simulation to escape:

Ignoring pseudoscientific interest in a topic, we can observe that in addition to several respected thinkers who have explicitly shared their probability of believe with regards to living in a simulation (ex. Elon Musk >99.9999999%, Nick Bostrom 20-50%, Neil deGrasse Tyson 50%, Hans Moravec “almost certainly”, David Kipping <50%), many scientists and philosophers have invested their time into thinking, writing, and debating on the topic indicating that they consider it at least worthy of their time. If they take the simulation hypothesis seriously, with probability of at least p, they should likewise contemplate on hacking the simulation with the same level of commitment. Once technology to run ancestor simulations becomes widely available and affordable it should be possible to change the probability of us living in a simulation by running sufficiently large number of historical simulations of our current year, and by doing so increasing our indexical uncertainty. If one currently commits to running enough of such simulations in the future, our probability of being in one can be increased arbitrarily until it asymptotically approaches 100%, which should modify our prior probability for the simulation hypothesis. Of course, this only gives us an upper bound, and the probability of successfully discovering an escape approach is likely a lot lower. What should give us some hope is that most known software has bugs and if we are in fact in a software simulation such bugs should be exploitable. (Even the argument about the Simulation Argument had a bug in it.)

Whole article, which i found very interesting. Considering the knowledge we have about us living in matrix/simulation, also confirmed by Cs. Deep ‘intersection’ with Work (by Gurdjieff/Castaneda - in order to escape the prison etc), concept of quantum computer simulation and that we are connected ‘operators’ of avatars shown in film the 13th Floor and so on.

Escaping the Matrix: Could We Hack or Escape a Simulated Reality?

Since the dawn of human consciousness we have pondered and wondered upon the nature of our reality and where we sit within it. It has been what has given rise to religions and philosophies since time unremembered, an unanswered question...

www.winterseason.org

 

[PopHistorian]

This might be the best thread in which to place this information regarding our 3D reality, because it comports, in general, with what is posted above.

There are many references in the transcripts to 3D reality being an illusion. I've noticed many videos in recent years in which people attempt to explain that we live in an illusion of our own (or someone's) creation, a holographic reality, a simulation, the matrix, etc.

Here's a fairly recent video (just 22 minutes) regarding, allegedly, CIA findings on this topic, that has, IMO, a high signal-to-noise ratio. It's dense and goes quickly, and the guy is an excellent speaker.

Thoughts/feedback appreciated.

Just a few things the Cs said early in the session history about illusion and the mastery of it that is within each of us.

12 December 1995

A: [...] You literally possess, within your consciousness profile, all the power that exists within all of creation!?! You absolutely have all that exists, ever has, or ever will, contained within your mind. All you have to do is learn how to use it, and at that moment, you will literally, literally, be all that is, was, and ever will be!!!!!!!!

27 May 1995

L: ... We see things as three dimensional only because we create an illusion based on memory and knowledge. We can never know the other side or the inside while we are looking at any given side.

27 May 1995

Q: (L) There is more. Can this consciousness be expressed… (T) We are trying to get from a third density concept to a fourth density concept where there is no physicality, per se. At fourth density they don’t have a problem with going at the speed of light and disintegrating, because it doesn’t exist there…
A: Close.
Q: (T) So, for us to try and think of this in third density…
A: Variable physicality is the key.
Q: (L) What makes the physicality variable?
A: Awareness of link between consciousness and matter.
Q: (L) What is the link between consciousness and matter?
A: Illusion.
Q: (L) What is the nature of the illusion? (T) That there isn’t any connection between consciousness and matter. It is only an illusion that there is. It is part of the third density…
A: No. Illusion is that there is not.
Q: (L) The illusion is that there is no link between consciousness and matter.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) The illusion is that there is not a link. In third density… (L) I got it! (T) Don’t disappear on me now! (laughter) The relationship is that consciousness is matter.

27 May 1995

Q: (T) If you warp space/time you travel by bringing your destination to you. (L) Or, you can reverse that and understand that there is no distance between us and, say, Alpha Centauri, it is the alteration of perception that turns the axis and creates the illusion of distance.
A: Now, all you need is the “technology.”
Q: (T) The technology is being developed right now. (J) The technology has probably already been developed, it is just suppressed.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) I have a very strange sense that this interaction has ramifications?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) A hint?
A: We could but won’t at this “time.”

17 June 1995

L: ... What is time?
A: We have already told you that it is a non-existent, artificial creation of illusion for the point of learning at the level where you are at or were, and once you have left that level, you no longer need it.

23 July 1995

A: ... Thoughts are the basis of all creation. After all, without thought nothing would exist....

9 September 1995

A: As we have told you, there are seven levels of density which involves, among other things, not only state of being physically, spiritually and etherically, and materially, but also, more importantly, state of awareness. You see, state of awareness is the key element to all existence in creation. You have undoubtedly remembered that we have told you that this is, after all, a grand illusion, have you not? So, therefore, if it is a grand illusion, what is more important, physical structure or state of awareness???
Q: (L) State of awareness?
A: Exactly.

For other YouTube takes on this topic you can seek out other videos with titles such as:
- Is Reality Real? - This One Idea Might Change Your Entire Life
- Top 5 Evidence That We're Living In A Simulation
- Atom: The Illusion Of Reality
- MIT Doctor PROVES: We're Living in SIMULATION!